"Inherit the Wind" is running on Broadway again, night after night pitting the righteously rational Clarence Darrow against the Bible-thumping antievolutionist William Jennings Bryan. The 1955 play--a chestnut of high-school English courses across the country--concerns the Scopes "Monkey Trial" of 1925 and is meant to capture the moment in American history when science and reason superseded, at last, the myth and superstition of foolish reactionaries. It has become something of a liberal sacrament. But as James Piereson shows in "Camelot and the Cultural Revolution," myth and superstition were the essence of the liberal response to John F. Kennedy's assassination in November 1963. It was the liberals who threw evidence and reason to the winds, inheriting the crippling effects of their own bad judgment. Mr. Piereson is not concerned with showing yet again that, yes--in defiance of all conspiracy theories--Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman on that fateful day. "Camelot and the Cultural Revolution," Mr. Piereson explains, is less about "the assassination itself than the political reaction to it and the lasting consequences of that reaction." It is one of the best accounts we have of why liberalism--which "owned the future" in 1963--fell from grace and has yet to recover.

Most of the Liberals I know look to JFK and FDR as icons of the Liberal movement. But JFK died 44 years ago and FDR goes back 60 years. They need to get over it and get on with their lives, constructing the future, not reliving the past.

Inherit the Windwhich starred Oscar winners Jack Lemmon and the late George C. Scottis the fictionalized account of the famous Scopes monkey trial of Dayton, Tennessee. But almost all of the scientific evidence brought forward during the time of the trial has been discarded.

There was another very disturbing thing about Inherit the Wind. It caricatured Christians as self-righteous, intolerant and mean-spirited. The two leading Christian characters in the film rant like lunatics much of the time.

The film did get one thing right. It is indeed a crime (to use their word) to censor an opposing view in the classroom. This lesson has been lost on secular humanists today who attempt to censor any evidence contrary to their dogmatic belief in evolution.

For Christians, the lesson to be learned is that we must be able to give answers for our faith. After all, Christianity is a logical, defensible faith.

5
posted on 07/12/2007 9:49:42 AM PDT
by LiteKeeper
(Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)

In the minds of liberals, then, Kennedy's killer should have been a right-wing fanatic.

In spite of the left's love of "Inherit the Wind", they will never accept the scientific method for one simple reason. Science is blind to ideology -- fact based. Hard Left ideologues will never accept reasoning where they cannot control the outcome.

I fully expect text books to eventually blame JFK's death on conservatives just as they discount Reagan when discussing the fall of the Soviet Union. Their irrationality when viewing history is a major reason why Putin is able to quietly reconstruct Soviet Russia.

The US has a long history of factionalism, and party strife. You can look to the 19th century for some real slapdown fights and mud-slinging. The 20th century has not really been different.

What has changed, I think, is that one party has become dominated by emotionally immature people who do not think clearly on major issues. People say Leftism is a mental illness, and I think that is true.

In the 1960's, there were certain Liberals (JFK, RFK, MLK, and Hubert Humphrey come to mind) and things weren't too crazy. But then JFK, RFK and MLK got killed. I think at that point the American Left gave up on Liberalism and walked away from the survivors like Hubert Humphrey. Instead, we got the Black Panthers, Weather Underground, and Hillary Clinton. Ever since, the Democrats have been dominated by people who don't have their head screwed on srtraight.

They hate this country because their dreams of Liberalism was taken away from them in their youth. Ever since, they have hated this country and sought to bring it down, and they indoctrinate the young in similar thinking. Howard Dean is crazy, Nancy Pelosi is crazy, all the Dems are.

9
posted on 07/12/2007 9:53:51 AM PDT
by ClearCase_guy
(Progressives like to keep doing the things that didn't work in the past.)

Bryan was a Christian Socialist and the architect of 20th century liberal economic policy. His ‘Cross of Gold’ speech at the 1896 Democratic National Convention was the keynote. He was a big influence on Woodrow Wilson and FDR.

A lot of far-left extremists have been in the Democrat Party for a long time, I agree. But I think that the rank-and-file voters did not knowingly give leadership positions to far-left extremists until the 1960's.

I think that Moscow, after WWII, tried to sway the US political system. McCarthy and Nixon helped slow that down in the 1950's. But I think the assassination of so many Liberal heroes in the 1960's, combined with behind-the-scene help from Russia and China, finally succeeded in changing the nature of the Democrats into a party where you have to be crazy to adhere to their view of the world.

13
posted on 07/12/2007 10:06:53 AM PDT
by ClearCase_guy
(Progressives like to keep doing the things that didn't work in the past.)

I read that the real Scopes Monkey Trial was itself a put-on with every player having a script and the verdict foreknown. It was stictly a media event, not a real trial in any sense. If true,how many out there know that?

The whole trial was a setup deal by the ACLU (yes, even back then they were stirring the pot). The defendant never taught evolution, and the whole movie was bogus. In fact, the producers admitted that the whole movie was phony, designed to attack Christians. They knew they weren’t telling the truth!

16
posted on 07/12/2007 10:16:54 AM PDT
by LiteKeeper
(Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)

Bryan pointed out that the evolution textbook in the case advanced ‘social darwinism’ and “ideas” about differences in the races which could lead to genocide.

He chided Darrow (and read directly from Darrow’s own statements in the Leopold and Loeb case) about how students were influenced by what they were taught, and how therefore how what ‘ideas’ they were taught could be dangerous.

A dozen years later, with Hitler in power, Bryan was proved right.

In the Scopes case, Bryan agreed to take the stand only if Darrow also took the stand to defend evolution. After Bryan was questioned, Darrow then broke the agreement and refused to let himself be questioned. Bryan, however, had taken pains to appear calm and reasonable and conducted himself in almost exactly the opposite manner as portrayed in the play/film.

Bryan wasn’t perfect but he deserves to be remembered as more than the buffoon character he is made out to be.

Bravo, and bookmarked. This article explains my previously stated reason for why I do what I do in the Oswald threads.

Some here want to ignore the reality of the early-1960s American left wing and instead choose to disbelieve and excuse the whole culture of the violent left based upon the unpredictability of 'magic bullet' terminal ballistics after it's passed through human tissue. To them, random circumstance vanquishes all logic.

Special thanks go to the 'Lone Gunman' deniers who have been carrying water for the radical left wing for over 40 years.

I think it is important to remember that JFK was murdered by a hardcore leftist specifically because he was (relatively) a hawk on national defense.

There is no doubt that Oswald was nutty as a loon but that is true of many of the lefties on the stage today. He was basically a prototype for later '60s radical types like Tom Hayden, John Kerry, SDS, the Weathermen, etc. The main difference was that he was a genuine poor person working alone and they were mostly a country club of spoiled rich white boys.

Lee Harvey Oswald was the father of the modern "Progressive" left and the shot he fired from the Texas School Book Depository was the opening shot of the hard left takeover of the Democrat party that took hold by the end of the Vietnam War.

Most of the alleged "controversy" about the assassination is an attempt to cover up the fact that JFK was killed by the left because he, whatever his VERY great faults, was not a traitor. They have done a very good job of muddying the waters.

Most of the Liberals I know look to JFK and FDR as icons of the Liberal movement. But JFK died 44 years ago and FDR goes back 60 years. They need to get over it and get on with their lives, constructing the future, not reliving the past.

IMHO somewhere between 1955 and 1965 America “peaked out” as a great nation standing on the firm foundation established in 1776. Since that time America has been going forward on the momentum built up by the first century and half of its existence through some trying times. Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” represented the beginning of the expansion of Federal powers and the welfare state. That trend has grown exponentially and will continue to do so as more and more individual liberties are surrendered to the Federal government. Look to socialist Europe to see the future of America, sadly.

27
posted on 07/12/2007 10:34:54 AM PDT
by CarryingOn
(America will not survive another Clinton presidency.)

It's not reason that is at the heart of modern-day liberalism but rather the claim to superior virtue and, even more important, to a special knowledge unavailable to the unwashed or unenlightened. Depending on the temper of the time, such virtue and knowledge can derive disproportionately from scientism or mysticism--or it can mix large dollops of both.

The opposite of scientism and of mysticism is candor. Rush Limbaugh is candid - he expresses himself openly, and continuously for hours at a time daily. Contrast that with the constricted "news" report which is scripted in advance (if it's not "breaking news") and which in any case is about a defined subject on which the reporter is, putatively, the expert and you and I are presumed to be ignorant. The reporter is always in a race to stay ahead of the rest of us in his knowledge of the story - and when that is no longer possible, the reporter drops the story as "old news" and moves on to another story in which the reporter has the advantage over the audience.

28
posted on 07/12/2007 10:46:47 AM PDT
by conservatism_IS_compassion
(The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)

Roosevelt did plenty of damage for which we will continue to pay for the rest of our days as a Republic. The killing of John Kennedy was the worst thing that could every have happened because it not only made him a sainted icon, but also left us with his corrupt and imbecilic relatives as “national leaders”.

JFK campaigned on low taxes. He opposed unionization of public employees. He was a bigtime anticommunist. Once upon a time, Ted Kennedy was anti-abortion. The Democrats really did voluntarily head straight to hell after JFK.

Republicans held our first state convention in Jackson, Michigan on July 6, 1854. That fall, the GOP swept to victory throughout the North. Other anti-slavery Members of Congress joined the party, so that less than two years later, on February 2, 1856, Republicans elected a Republican Speaker of the House. The Republican National Committee first met the next month, to coordinate opposition to the pro-slavery policies of the Democrats, also known then as "slaveocrats."

And that summer, Republicans held our first national convention. There, we nominated our first presidential candidate, the Georgia-born form California Senator John Fremont. Four years later, we won the White House for the "Great Emancipator."

As the nation sacrificed during the Civil War, Republicans planned the most significant amendments ever to our Constitution and enacted - despite fierce opposition from the Democrats - the 13th Amendment to ban slavery, the 14th Amendment to protect all Americans regardless of the color of their skin, and the 15th Amendment to extend voting rights to African-Americans. The Republicans' 1875 Civil Rights Act guaranteed equal access to public accommodations without regard to race. Struck down by the Supreme Court in 1883, this law would be reborn as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

"Every man that wanted the privilege of whipping another man to make him work for nothing, and pay him with lashes on his naked back, was a Democrat. Every man that raised bloodhounds to pursue human beings was a Democrat. Every man that cursed Abraham Lincoln because he issued the Emancipation Proclamation was a Democrat." - Robert Ingersoll, 1876.

For its first 80 years, the Republican Party was the only one to provide a home for Afican-Americans. Until well into the 20th century, every African-American Member of Congress was a Republican. The same was true for nearly all state legislators and other elected officials.

(Emphasis added.)

42
posted on 07/12/2007 4:05:50 PM PDT
by Milhous
(There are only two ways of telling the complete truth: anonymously and posthumously. - Thomas Sowell)

As you said, the "controversy", and I'll add, the conspiracy theories regarding the JFK assasination were nothing more than a diversion by the Left, and I think the KGB agents here (because of the connection of Oswald to the Soviets.)

That diversion was the true conspiracy that we should be interested in.

Absolutely. Its well established that much of the early JFK assassination conspiracy theories were promoted in books secretly subsidized by the KGB. They were using the left to cause as much trouble as possible in the US.

For instance, at the time of the Assassination the KGB was broadcasting a propaganda radio broadcast called "Radio Free Dixie" from Cuba in an attempt to encourage violence among blacks in the south.

Lots of disturbing into about KGB activities in the US are detailed in the book The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB by Christopher Andrew.

This article explains my previously stated reason for why I do what I do in the Oswald threads. Some here want to ignore the reality of the early-1960s American left wing and instead choose to disbelieve and excuse the whole culture of the violent left based upon the unpredictability of 'magic bullet' terminal ballistics after it's passed through human tissue. To them, random circumstance vanquishes all logic. Special thanks go to the 'Lone Gunman' deniers who have been carrying water for the radical left wing for over 40 years.

Amusing rant Kid, but I think of the politics of that era more or less as does Mad_as_Heck:

I think it is important to remember that JFK was murdered by a hardcore leftist specifically because he was (relatively) a hawk on national defense.

It's quite true that JFK had as many enemies on the far left, - as he had on the far right. Maybe more. But in any case the radicals of both left & right tend to be socialistic/fascists.

There is no doubt that Oswald was nutty as a loon but that is true of many of the lefties on the stage today. He was basically a prototype for later '60s radical types like Tom Hayden, John Kerry, SDS, the Weathermen, etc. The main difference was that he was a genuine poor person working alone and they were mostly a country club of spoiled rich white boys.

'Working alone' is arguable. - For sure he didn't have much money but he did get around. [Russia/Mexico] - I don't recall that his personal finances were ever even reconciled by the Commission. - How did he manage to finance his political activities on minimum wage dead end jobs?

Lee Harvey Oswald was the father of the modern "Progressive" left and the shot he fired from the Texas School Book Depository was the opening shot of the hard left takeover of the Democrat party that took hold by the end of the Vietnam War.

Well, LBJ's 'hard left' sure took over, but I doubt anyone saw Oswald as anything more than a patsy, certainly not as a 'father'.

Most of the alleged "controversy" about the assassination is an attempt to cover up the fact that JFK was killed by the left because he, whatever his VERY great faults, was not a traitor.

Yep, - JFK was a threat to the Democrats socialist wing, imo.

They have done a very good job of muddying the waters.

Hear, hear. [is that an echo Kid?]

45
posted on 07/12/2007 6:31:16 PM PDT
by tpaine
(" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)

HILLARY RODHAM’s (Diane, as she went by back then) & WILLIAM Jefferson CLINTON’s (as he went by back then) public support of Communist North Vietnam’s push to take over a then Free South Vietnam long ago ...sadly produced:

During his presidency, Kennedy had repeatedly criticized the irrationalism of far-right-wing anticommunists and their segregationist cousins. It was a turbulent time, lest we forget. In April 1963, the police in Birmingham, Ala., had set dogs upon peaceful civil-rights marchers, and in June segregationists in Mississippi assassinated NAACP leader Medgar Evers. In October, protesters in Dallas had harassed Adlai Stevenson, Kennedy's United Nations ambassador. Dallas was a notoriously segregated city, and the John Birch Society (whose members thought President Eisenhower had been under communist sway) were a part of the city's political culture. The society's Dallas leader was Gen. Edwin Walker, whom Oswald had tried to kill in April by shooting at him through a window in his home. (Oswald just missed.) Thus when Kennedy was shot on Nov. 22, 1963, it was widely assumed that his killer was the kind of hate-filled reactionary who believed Kennedy to be selling out America to Soviet Communism and to be showing too little resistance to the civil-rights movement.

That was not "widely assumed" at all - as Oswald's defection to the Soviet Union was established almost immediately.

In the minds of liberals, then, Kennedy's killer should have been a right-wing fanatic. But he wasn't. Oswald was a man of the hard left. He had defected to the Soviet Union. When he found that country too bureaucratic, he returned to America and began proselytizing for Fidel Castro and his supposedly new brand of the third-world revolution.

Yep, those facts were shouted from the rooftops, leaving many rational people doubtful of Oswald's motives from day one. - Why would a known leftist shoot at JFK? - It made no sense then, - and it still doesn't now.

Nor was Oswald an irrational, discontented Dostoevskian loner, as some depicted him. He was in fact a joiner of movements and something of a self-defined intellectual who thought that his mixture of Marxism and anarchism made him smarter and more sophisticated than his frivolous peers.

Yes indeed. - As details of Oswalds life became known -- long before the Warren Report was published, - the mystery of his motivation was being discussed. - However, most people were willing to wait for the Report before making judgments.

Little did we know that the Report would raise more questions than it resolved; - it was a mess, and the American people overwhelmingly rejected it immediately. - Before any conspiracy books were even published.

48
posted on 07/12/2007 8:01:45 PM PDT
by tpaine
(" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)

"... 'Working alone' is arguable. - For sure he didn't have much money but he did get around. [Russia/Mexico] - I don't recall that his personal finances were ever even reconciled by the Commission. - How did he manage to finance his political activities on minimum wage dead end jobs?"

Oswald took a bus to Mexico. How much do you think it cost in 1963 to charter a ride through Mexico in a greasy bus with diesel exhaust and dirt up to the windows? I wouldn't be surprised if the fare is under 100 bucks even today. There were several witnesses to that expedition. He ate cheap meals at the chartered stops. On that trip, he was even wearing the ratty sweater he had on when he was arrested in Dallas.

He passed out poorly mimeographed 'Fair Play for Cuba' handbills in New Orleans. Sounds cheap to me.

To Russia, he booked a shared cabin on a clunky freighter to Europe with part of his savings from the USMC and even walked part of the way into the USSR. He petitioned the US State Department for funds to get him home when he wanted to return with Marina. They billed him for a refund.

He also bought a cheap surplus rifle via mail order that he used to murder the President of the United States.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.